St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1887-07-14
A BAD BLUNDER.

The st Louis Officials, the Adams EXPRESS
People and All Concerned Discover That
! They Have No JurisdictiOn to Try Messen-
ger Fotheringllam for Completely in the
Great Express Robbery.
ST. LOUIS, May Nv hen the Fothering-
ham case was resumed in the Criminal
| Court this morning, H. c. Springlc, con
ductOr of the robbed train, was called
He testified last evening that he heard no
! Outcry from FOtheringha until st. CLAIR
/ was reached: that on entering the car he
found him firmly bound, but saw no gag
FOtheringham was cool and composed;
at first the messenger refused to say how
much was stolen; but afterWard sad 1t
vas about $50, 900 in bills.
Fotheringham was reluctant to report
| the matter to the company, the conductor
said. The story of the robbery told by
/ him to the conductor, was repeated by
! Fotheringham at the Southern two weeks
/ later, without any variation.
| Cross-examned this morning, Mr..
! Springle SAID he knocked at the door OF
! the express car at Mencke, but received
| no answer, and that afterWard FOtherlng-
! ham told him that he heard the knock,
/ but was afraid to answer, as jim Cum
mings was holding pistol to his head.
! Fotheringham, he said, was "tled to stay
| his hands fastened first with handker-
| chief, and then securely bound with stout
| cords. On top of the safe to which he was
/ bound, casting, weighing about thirty
| five pounds, was found, so fastened that
| if Fotherin CHAM moved it would fall and
+ crush him.
! At s.. Clair, where Fotheringham was
/ unbound. the witness told the telegraph
operator in the presence of FOthering
ham to telegraph full particulars of the
robbery At the inve legation held by
| the express people, the witness was i'm
pressed with the idea that the company
was seeking to connect him with the rob-
berry.
The witness was asked if from what he
had seen on the night of the robbery and all
through the case he was not satisfied that
Fotheringham was innocent and had so
| stated.
The state objected and the court ruled it
out.
After James Barrett, route agent of the
express company, had given his testimony.
| Circuit Attorney Glover announced that
the State would stand on the count Of the
indictment charging him with taking the
money, but not with receiving the stolen
property.
Judge Normile ordered the Sheriff to re-
luUS Z luc jury. anu dttcf tucy 1ctllcu
asked Circuit Attorney Glover if the State
| had any Other evidence except that the al
legged offense was committed at Oak
Ridge, in ST. Louis county
Mr.. Glover said he had not and claimed
jurisdiction simply from section 1896.
Judge Normille said:
The view the court takes Of that
statute is not a doubtful one. Iregret
that this case has gone so far.
st is an old principle of common law
that offenses must be tried in the vlcinage
where they were committed, and the
earliest juries wero confined to eye wit
nesseS.
THE il lictment in this case is evident
~ founded on the supposed validity of sec
ton 1896, which authorizes prosecution
for an offcnse committed on railroad car
in any county through which the car N ay
run. This particular section has never
been passed upon, but section 1891 has
been declared unconstitutional, and they
are alike in principle, as each declares
that offenscs may be prosecuted in diff
ferent county from where the offense was
committed.
''Since the money was not taken from
the express car in the city of st. Louis nor
any part of it brought into this city by
the defendant, this court has no jurisdic-
ton. The case must be dismissed here
and transferred to St. Louis county"
The jury was then called in and Judge
Normile instructed them to acquit Foth-
eringham on the ground of want Of juris-
dictlon.
Messrs. Harvey and johnson objected,
and their exceptions were noted.
The jury retired and returned with the
verdict as directed by the court
Circuit Attorney Glover said there was
second Indictment against the defend
ant covering the same ground, and he
would nolle pros. it.
Mr.. Glover then asked the court to hold
Fotherihgham under bond to answer any
indictment that might be brought in st.
Louis County.
Judge Normile said he had no authority
to take such action, and the defendant
was discharged, Circuit Attorney Clover
stating that he would call the attention of
Prosecutor Warfield, Of st. Louis County,
to the matter.